What Should the Common Political Philosophy of the Ruling Party or the Candidate Parties Should Be?
What Should the Common Political Philosophy of the Ruling Party and the Opposition Be?
Theoretical Perspective
The Anatolian thinker Thales claimed thousands of years ago that the essence of everything, the first substance, is water. The first Greek philosopher, Anaximenes, said that this essence is not water, but air. Heraclitus, the owner of the idea of immortal change, also argued that the basic element of everything is fire. However, when we look at it from the perspective of the "science of being" today, each of us on average can easily claim that countless other things, including the earth, are also an element of the system we call the universe or the universe. The point that science has reached gives us a power of "wisdom" that will strongly support our argument.
To our imaginary world, on the condition that they keep their original thoughts; What if we invited Thales, Anaximenes and Heraclitus and asked in a television program "What is the essence of everything?" If we asked the question to them and listened to the discussion between them, do you think it would be possible for us to reach a meaningful conclusion? Or how accurate would it be to have this discussion in the face of the bare scientific reality we know today?
The point I want to come to is the things that were seen as a problem for a while; When viewed from a wider perspective and reconsidered with the culture of consensus, it will no longer be a problem by itself and it will be understood that the parties are wasting each other's time with vicious conflicts. Likewise, if a society adopts the principle of "solving its problems in a political or mental way"; Undoubtedly, the political institution will offer the members of that society the opportunity to reconcile and live together.
When we look at the dictionaries, if we ignore the meanings such as "punishment and grooming" in terms of the subject of this article, we will see that the word politics has meanings such as "state administration, politics, diplomacy".
In this respect, the subject of politics is the state, the relationship of administration. Politics can also be seen as a power mechanism that allows the legitimate brute force to impose certain values on someone else. The content and form of politics; changes according to the social structures and the flow of history. In fact, there may be differences in the style and understanding of politics depending on the change and new form of the same society over time. Depending on the direction of the politics that touches the whole society and the values it represents, it can have very different ethics for the interest clusters in the society. If there is no contradiction in the sharing of the common wealth of the society that emerged as a result of the production forces and production relations, it can be said that the political institution that represents the society or the state is compatible and serves social reconciliation, peace, tranquility and general welfare. However, if the political institution causes or cannot eliminate the contradiction in the sharing of wealth, then the fight for the sharing of the cake between the parties with conflicting interests will somehow spread to the politics or cause the politics to become dirty.
Political philosophy, a political power that eliminates or does not allow this contradiction; He argues that eventually he will be able to establish the ideal state system. However, historiography has repeatedly shown and continues to show that this is not as easy as it seems.
For example, Plato acted to uphold the moral and political values of his class, thus protecting the existing order and the interests of those fed by this order. He praised and idealized the political values that sustain the current system. After all, Plato, who consciously ignores the slavery order in the society he is in; He reduced the ideal state paradigm he envisioned to the argument that "only aristocratic philosophers can rule the society". Plato, who was brought up in a land-owning, wealthy family; In order to protect the interests of the Greek landed aristocracy, he sanctified the ideal of an oligarchic state ruled by the elite, a stratum that could safely run state affairs.
Aristotle, who carried Plato's thoughts to the next level (his father was the doctor of King Philip of Macedonia); He was influenced by the great Macedonian ideal, which dreamed of world domination, and as a result, according to Plato, he reached a broader social perspective. However, Aristotle could not go beyond presenting a world design that accepted the slavery order in his society and did not see the oppressed.
Similar ironic and distorted way of thinking; It was also reflected in the ideas of the founding fathers of the United States, who shaped today's world of values and lifestyle, and the approaches of the French Revolution that transformed all the established values of that period. For example, in the USA, which appeared on the world stage on July 4, 1776, disproportionate political power was granted to slave owners. Slavery, which was once seen as "movable property", was only formally abolished in 1865 at the end of the civil war. It took another 100 years before it could be removed in real terms. After the French Revolutions, which came to life with the slogan of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", the bourgeoisie did not abandon the principle of "fraternity". Equality is limited to an abstract concept that is valid only before the law. Freedom, on the other hand, has been transformed into the freedom of the wealthy to engage in industry and commerce as they wish.
In this context, Hegel, the founder of the "theory of change", who originally defended the new bourgeois regime based on a dialectical approach, for some reason preferred not to touch the Church institutions and signed an ideal peace with the eternal Absolute (God) in his intellectual world. In a sense, he did not touch the traditions of nobility and religious respect, which are very effective political tools, and preferred to develop a "philosophy" in favor of the existing Church order. Marx, who was essentially a Hegelian, and Engels, who accompanied Marx with his knowledge on French utopian socialism and English political economy, worked together. These two re-blend Hegel's theory of change with a new and revolutionary philosophy and made a successful transition to scientific socialism. Ultimately, what makes Marx unique from the rest is that he always gravitated towards a philosophy that favors the oppressed and oppressed, rather than the current status quo.
“Religion is the opium of the society!” Marx, who took a revolutionary stance against the ideology of religion, the protector of the feudal social order in the West, and Hz. In this respect, Muhammad met at the same point. Putting changing the world on the basis of his philosophy, Marx; He predicted that he would save himself from exploitation with the political power he would gain at the end of the struggle of the oppressed working class, starting from the forms of production. He argued that this struggle would put the capitalist economic order on the shelf. By discussing this argument and foresight in his works, he became an important source of inspiration and a sign of salvation for large masses.
Despite all the philosophical efforts, Capitalism, which turned labor into a commodity and concentrated the means of production and money in the hands of a minority in the employer position, could not be defeated. The antithesis of capitalism, Communism, has entrusted the means of production and financial power to the Politburo on behalf of the society. As a result, both ideologies; They continued to represent a mechanism that exploits the labor of producers and workers in different ways.
Political system
The basic mechanism that will change this "broken order" and that is expected to represent the interests and values of the society must of course be a political institution for all societies. The state, which is the main actor of politics that emerged as an extension of interests and values; In order to serve both the forces of production and the relations of production, it has inevitably assumed a dominant position above society. The political system designed to govern the state; It is expected to have an understanding that serves the working/oppressed classes as well as protecting the productive forces.
In this respect, the form, nature, officials, tools, ideology, etc. of the state, which is the leading actor of the political scene, are discussed. things reflect the represented society. In the literature, the network of relations that a state establishes with its own society is called the "political system". Apart from the state, this system includes political parties, pressure groups, voters, all individuals and organizations that assume a political function.
It can be said that the state is what society is. For example, the state established by a society dominated by the bondage-servant relationship and the state of an egalitarian, liberal and democratic society cannot be equated with each other. Again, from the same point of view, politics or government mechanisms have to be shaped according to the structure of the society they are in. That is, “How you are, you are managed!” As indicated in the hadith, in a good or bad sense, whatever you are, the rulers at your head will be and will continue to be so. The political mechanism or system will not change unless the society changes and transforms itself. For this reason, it is far from being a valid assumption to expect a change in the management of the political institutions, which are the mirror of the society. Therefore, all segments of society that have the power to influence politics; In one way or another, it is responsible for the political system, the mechanism of the state and its functioning. A society that does not fight for the "better" is the reason why the existing "broken" order or status quo continues to exist.
If we start from here, it will be useful to understand the struggle for "change" that the Turkish society has been continuing within itself since at least the end of the 19th century, in order to shape our future.
The Hundred Years Struggle for Power in the Turkish State and Political Life
Since the last periods of the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish political elites, who had a say in political life, have been trying to reform, modernize and secularize Turkish society in time. Social engineering, the product of positivism (rationalism, science, and social progress), is an important tool for reformist Turkish elites in the rational restructuring of Turkish society,
adopted as the model. Turkish modernization movements, which started with the tradition of “İttihat ve Terakki” with a positivist content; They were based on French Jacobinism, a model of strong central change, rather than Anglo-Saxon liberalism. With the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the construction of the nation-state, the establishment of the central national education system, the integration of the legal system with the West, as well as the principle of secularism, became a subjective part of the Turkish type of social engineering process.
In Turkey, secularism has been accepted as a priority requirement of westernization rather than democracy. Secularism, seen as a modernist ideology, was successfully established when public life was completely under state control. In particular, the principle of secularism, which was constitutionally guaranteed in 1937; As an institution that the Turkish state elite clings to, it has been a useful tool for decades in terms of guiding the society and protecting the republican gains. State power-based practices based on the strict version of Turkish secularism; It has taken on an imposing identity built on not performing religious duties in the “public sphere” for a long time, public employees complying with the dress code (the headscarf issue), adopting a moralistic and pedagogical-modern lifestyle developed somewhat independently of Islam, or the general public. been perceived in this way.
Republican era elites, who turned their faces to the norms and values of the West, integrated with contemporary civilization; they consciously got rid of their cultural heritage, which they believed left the society behind, and defined themselves as "progressive" to the Turkish society. Thus, the new political system dominated by a new Western-oriented elite; It weakened those of the old elites who could not adapt to these new conditions, took away their social authority and status, and somehow eliminated the majority of them.
In short, the republican elites that came to life with the movement of Atatürk's reforms; They believed in the interests of the nation-state and devoted themselves to the values of secularism and progress. The majority of this group, who defined themselves as "progressive Atatürkist intellectuals" in reference to Atatürk's reforms, were not very willing to have capital, preferred to be dedicated with cultural capital rather than financial power, and ultimately became a different status group in the society. Especially the military elites, who form the backbone of this group, were educated in a modern special education system, similar to the Ottoman Enderun school system. During their duties in the state, the military elites, who believed in the secular nation-state system and were sincere system guards who were devoted to their state, were seen by non-military progressive intellectuals as the insurance of the secular republic system.
On the other hand, during this period, conflicts continued between the republican elites, who had adopted a secular lifestyle, and the more traditional, local and religious, limited-minded or "old-fashioned" elites. Even though both groups received the same Western-style education and working environment, such an ideological break and separation inevitably continued to exist. Ultimately, the difference stemming from the social recognition and social status of the republican elites, which excludes Islamic life and dominates the functioning and institutions of the state, although they do not fully dominate the political system; It has taken its place in Turkish society life over time as a political and social reality that started the tension and struggle between secular and Islamist sections.
Unlike the groups living in villages, small towns and the slums and slums of ever-growing cities; Social classes belonging to the middle and high strata, who built the Western lifestyle in the center of the cities, had the privilege of accessing the best opportunities in the Turkish education system. From this point of view, they were seen as privileged in terms of being at the center of the rising values in Turkish society in every period. Due to their dominance of a more modern lifestyle and style compared to the rest of the society, they easily found a place for themselves in the society and the state system and were able to gain prestige. This privileged structure, which developed against the equality of opportunity, in time led to a kind of center-periphery conflict in Turkish society life. In fact, it has caused the social system to be questioned as a whole and has become a problem of cultural separation between social layers. In other words, a healthy communication, interaction and common cultural life setup that would enable coexistence between the Muslims of the suburbs and the secularists in the heart of the city could not be fully established, contrary to the ideal of building a homogeneous and homogeneous Turkish society.
However, the educational structure of the Republican regime that is open and accessible to all segments of the society, the public order structure; Muslim identity in villages and suburbs
It continued to provide access to urban life, liberal education and modern ways of expressing themselves in the political arena for these groups, which prioritized the political arena. However, regardless of modern education, this educated Muslim segment; Contrary to those who adopt the 'secular world' view, they have made it a cultural cycle to code their new lives according to Islamic sources and to live in a way that prioritizes Islamic principles in their social world.
Islamist intellectuals, who have succeeded in making a place for themselves in the society day by day, have started to reach the same cultural capital as the republican elites, to teach in the same schools, to share parliamentary seats with them, and to take part in discussion programs on television and social media. These efforts have brought them social recognition, legitimacy and prestige. The new Islamic intellectual group has developed a different and progressive stance from the old Islamic thinkers. They have successfully used the modern Turkish language, and they have come to speak Western languages. They referred to Western thinkers, delved into topics such as post-modernism, and eventually 'elevated' to a level that could be publicly debated with secular intellectuals. In a way, Muslim elites and secular elites met on an “equal” status. In other words, Islamist elites have made an effort to develop an alternative Islamic identity and contribute to the constructability of a more advanced society, to come together with secular intellectuals despite their differences in perspectives.
In parallel with these developments, with the establishment of the National Order Party in 1970, Turkish Islamism was integrated into the political system and legitimized by the parliamentary system. Liberal and devout Turgut Özal (1983-91), leader of the Motherland Party, who came to power through democratic and peaceful means, established market institutions in Turkey and privatized the mass media, making the media an accessible environment for everyone. As a necessary extension of the free market economy and the global system, the "shrinking state" is limited to a structure that can interfere with the economy less than before. The secular elite, which has always entrusted the dynamics of economic life to state-owned enterprises and big capital, has often been unwilling to engage in economic life, but rather has limited its area to the functioning of the state and public institutions. The statist cultural codes based on this understanding have been a part of the identity represented by the Republic since the first years. Therefore, he did not see the shrinking new state in the field of economy as a problem area for him.
In this sense, the changing economic life has given the opportunity to open new doors to the relatively poor Muslim segment in the slums who desire a better life, especially in the service sector, in order to access “money and means of production” and eventually become rich, as well as the large capital groups in Turkey.
Meanwhile, with the changing social structure, religious and ethnic identity, national integrity, secularism and democratic pluralism etc. concepts have become controversial in Turkish society life. In this context, the debates between the secular elites and the Islamist elites on the direction of social and cultural change in Turkey have begun to find a place in the agenda of the society. These new discussions also served to make room for the views and new approaches of the Islamist elite in the political mechanism.
In this period, republican elites launched an open war against "Islamic fundamentalism" in order to stop the "rising" Islamic section, in essence, in the political and public spheres, in order to protect secularism and the gains (values) of the Republic. However, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), a movement that emerged from the Welfare Party, which was established as the continuation of the Nizam Party, was able to stand out from the existing political parties, which was seen as the cause of the 2001 economic crisis, and thus, the owner of the political power in Turkey since November 2002. and later on, they could not prevent it from becoming the sole determinant of the 'public-military-foreign affairs elite'.
At this point, the AKP government, which has a history of 20 years; Over time, the flag bearer of Turkish modernization, which was once dominating the state and to some extent politics, largely parted ways with the secular elite. The old secular elites, who could not "adapt" to the state life shaped according to the new political conditions, "weakened" when necessary. They were "liquidated" by the Islamist elites, who were rapidly rising in the system and were candidates to replace them, either by the disposition of political power or by their own personal preferences. In the final analysis, according to some, the Ottoman remnant at the beginning of the Republic, the secular elites who ousted the old "Islamist" elites from the system, albeit a century later, was a revenge for the past.
Conclusion
The Republic of Turkey is a young state. There is still a period of two years before us to reach the centennial year. Our geopolitical reality imposed by the homeland on which Turkey is founded; The rights and interests of our country do not allow us to waste time with constant social conflicts and endless revisionist struggles. Regardless of which political party or identity is in power, it is expected to solve our main problem, "the problem of not being able to produce". This is our well-known fact. It's not too late for anything.
The politics based on common sense that we should follow; With a developmental state approach, with a development planning managed by a competent technocrat-bureaucrat (secularism-Islamism, Turkish-Kurdish, Sunni-Alevi, right-left, etc., without falling into the traps of separation, without marginalizing anyone), it should focus on the goal of implementing an export-based industrialization strategy.
It should be our common ideal and belief that Turkey should take the place it deserves as soon as possible, as a requirement of the mission that history has imposed on itself, among the great states engaged in the struggle for sharing in space. We must stop fighting with each other and our past in this holy and holy land of our homeland, which is entrusted with the blood of our martyrs and which is entrusted to us by St. Atatürk and his comrades. We must once again become an interlocked Turkish society that embraces each and every one of its members. In the Turkish state, politics, industry, capital and social sectors, we must establish a social structure and working life based on merit and competence, truly functioning on the principles of 'fraternity, freedom and equality'. We have to establish. If we still want to catch up with the era we are missing, we all have to be united and act together...
Before it's too late; “O Turk! Tremble and (now) come back to yourself!”
